<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1969 (4) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178519</link>
    <description>Article 311(2) requires a delinquent employee to receive a full and reasonable opportunity in disciplinary proceedings, including access to the enquiry report material needed to answer the proposed penalty. Where the Enquiry Officer also gives recommendations on punishment, those recommendations form part of the material considered by the punishing authority and must be disclosed before a show-cause notice on penalty is issued. Withholding them denies an effective opportunity to contest the proposed punishment. On that basis, omission to furnish the recommendations vitiated the disciplinary process at the penalty stage and the removal order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:08:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 117 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178519</link>
      <description>Article 311(2) requires a delinquent employee to receive a full and reasonable opportunity in disciplinary proceedings, including access to the enquiry report material needed to answer the proposed penalty. Where the Enquiry Officer also gives recommendations on punishment, those recommendations form part of the material considered by the punishing authority and must be disclosed before a show-cause notice on penalty is issued. Withholding them denies an effective opportunity to contest the proposed punishment. On that basis, omission to furnish the recommendations vitiated the disciplinary process at the penalty stage and the removal order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>